- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:05:36 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Peter,
With reference to your comment:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0154.html
I accept a need for editorial revision, and have recorded it with id
109-ExpressivePower [**]. The purpose of the rest of this message is to
try to ensure that I properly understand your concerns.
[**] for my own tracking purposes: when the scope of the issue is
established, I'll ask Brian to allocate a WG tracking ID.
I think the problem can be described thus:
[[
There is incorrect wording describing the expressive power of RDF.
A formal description would be:
"The expressive power of RDF is equivalent to the binary
existential-conjunctive subset of first order logic".
Any informal explanations should be consistent with this.
]]
To further help me understand your concerns, can you clarify to me why you
regard the following representations are not legitimate answers to the
questions you raise:
[[
1. How can
takes(John,book,school)
be represented in RDF?
<rdf:Description>
<rdf:type rdf:resource="ex:TakingEvent" />
<ex:taker rdf:resource="ex:John"/>
<ex:taken rdf:resource="ex:Book"/>
<ex:to rdf:resource="ex:School"/>
</rdf:Description>
2. How can
loves(John,spouse(John))
be represented in RDF?
<rdf:Description about="ex:John">
<ex:loves rdf:parseType="resource">
<rdf:Description>
<ex:spouse rdf:resource="ex:John" />
</rdf:Description>
</ex:loves>
</rdf:Description>
]]
#g
--
At 10:26 AM 1/30/03 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>RDF Concepts states
> The expressive power of RDF corresponds to the
> existential-conjunctive (EC) subset of first order logic [Sowa].
>
>How can
> takes(John,book,school)
>be represented in RDF?
>
>How can
> loves(John,spouse(John))
>be represented in RDF?
>
>How can the RDF and RDFS semantic conditions be represented in the
>existential-conjunctive subset of first order logic?
-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 11:28:31 UTC